Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

The gospel of Luke finishes on the night following the day of the resurrection.

When Mary attempted to touch him, Jesus told her not to do so, as he had not yet ascended to the Father ... yet a week later, Thomas was permitted to touch him. So - what happened on the night following the resurrection that changed things?

Nothing. The word translated "touch" has a range of meanings in English - which is why it is rendered differently in some translations as "do not cling to me." IMO the latter translation is both more in character with Jesus' personality and quite in character with the reaction of a woman happily reunited with someone she missed dearly.

[One Bad Pig]

Acts 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4 And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;

and now see


Luke 24:
48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”


Luke says that Jesus said for them to remain in Jerusalem until they relieved power from on High.

when did they receive this power? Acts 1 : 3 & 4 say that jesus appeared to them 40 days, and then told them to stay in Jerusalem until they receive power. In Acts 2, they receive this power, while In Jerusalem, after Christ flew away.


This is in conflict with Matthew, who says nothing of Jerusalem, but has Jesus telling his disciples to meet him in Galilee.

when telling as story about a trip, no one thinks it's weird to omit the pit stops, but to omit an out of the way 136 mile round trip, seems odd.

I just dont see how you can reconcile the two, nor do I see how Acts 1:3 fixes that once you read the surrounding verses.

If vv. 44-49 are seen as a synopsis of what happened during the 40 days, then it is quite easy to reconcile. A synopsis, by definition, cannot cover everything that happened in the intervening timeframe. The omission of the trip to Galilee can be seen as something simply not important enough to the author to include, especially if he was running out of writing room on the scroll he was using (and IIRC there are indications that this may have indeed been the case).

[tabibito]

Nothing. The word translated "touch" has a range of meanings in English - which is why it is rendered differently in some translations as "do not cling to me." IMO the latter translation is both more in character with Jesus' personality and quite in character with the reaction of a woman happily reunited with someone she missed dearly.

I'll readily accept the variation to the translation for "touch" - it is well within the range of meanings for haptomai. So Jesus says "Do not cling to me for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but tell them I am ascending (actually: I ascend) to the Father." Even if the Koine Greek "gar" is translated as (the perfectly acceptable) "indeed" instead of "for" - there is no need to guess why Jesus refused the touch/cling ... he has stated the reason. And - he has also stated what he will be doing before Mary reports to the disciples.

The fact remains though, that "de" doesn't imply any (unrecorded) passage of time - it can't.

[William]

If vv. 44-49 are seen as a synopsis of what happened during the 40 days, then it is quite easy to reconcile. A synopsis, by definition, cannot cover everything that happened in the intervening timeframe. The omission of the trip to Galilee can be seen as something simply not important enough to the author to include, especially if he was running out of writing room on the scroll he was using (and IIRC there are indications that this may have indeed been the case).

maybe. But Luke ends with "wait here," which tends to imply, "don't go anywhere." Galilee is somewhere other than Jerusalem, so to go there would not be waiting. Then Luke gives his synopsis in Acts, which again omits any mention of Galilee. To me, suggesting that Luke leaves room for a trip to Galilee is just being way to generous with the text, and then it's only done to try and get some harmony out of two texts that don't harmonize on this point.

In acts, or In Luke, he could have just added, "and once in Galilee," or something similar. he would have to be very strapped for space for that to have made him leave it out.

again, this is another issue that could have very easily been corrected before it ever became an issue - it just wasnt.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I have spent some time in the middle east. Several different countries there. I am sure it's not exactly the same, but no matter where you go, you will find "individualistic" mindsets. Even the bible confirms this. Harlotry was shameful, yet we have plenty of whores and Johns in the Bible, no? and that's not all, is it? Why were there whores and whoremongers in that time if it were shameful, and if no one went against such an honor/shame culture?

Geez. Why would they do that in the Old Testament? Here's a clue. The cultures around them were polytheistic and were engaging in this kind of behavior. Israelites felt shamed by the other cultures and wanted the honor that went with those cultures. They exchanged their patron of YHWH for the patron of other deities. We even see this in their request to Samuel. "We want a king like all the other nations." Israel was tired of being shamed by those around her.

You're asserting that the people were robots unable to deviate from societal programming. It's not true now nor was it true then.

No. I'm not. I'm just saying that people in this culture thought primarily in terms of honor and shame. If you think they didn't, then please find some evidence of this position.

I just dont find the assertions of an empty tomb or the belief of some that Jesus raised from the dead convicting. That's not proof - it's hardly evidence at all.

If you will check the debate thread itself, I did not make assertions. I made arguments.

is there something you have in mind?

Yes. The debate itself.

We could argue over whether you address it all or adequately, but I think that would be a bit tangential.

It would not address the point that the challenges are addressed and not ignored. Could one do an exhaustive job? Hardly, but one can have the primary questions answered.

perhaps. But we have all seen natural events. There is no dispute that they occur. There is also examples of what people once thought were direct actions by God and divine, but have since been shown to be very natural. So looking to see if there is a natural explanation before accepting a supernatural explanation seems more in line with reality. Granted, this is an opinion.

Okay. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these examples. However, your main problem is that this assumes that events of a miraculous nature never occur. Again, this is why you go through a work like Keener's. Are some of the miracles in there not really miracles? Probably. All of them? Well that's quite a pill to swallow. For your position to be true, every person who has claimed a miracle past or present must be lying or mistaken or delusional. Every single one of them. That's quite a claim. I happen to agree with Chesterton.

But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder … If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things … you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles … Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.

This isnt really correct. If a "miracle" happened without context then you'd be right, but that's not the case here. The context is Hindu Idol gods. Those are specifically tied to the miraculous milk drinking.

And for the context, I'd say all it shows is that there is some spiritual being tied into the events of the milk drinking. I have no problem with that.

LOL, right. so what. I made the comment in reply to you saying the same thing. anyone can say that, so it's moot.

Exactly. Saying you or I find the arguments convincing or unconvincing does not deal with the arguments.

I have not yet.

Then I suggest you get to your local library.

by perfect, I mean without error. I dont think it's unreasonable to presume a perfect God could have a perfect book written, especially if he can raise men from the dead and create the universe.

And if we spend all day talking about what God could have done, that bar can just keep getting raised more and more. It's a problem of not dealing with the evidence presented because it's not the evidence one wants.

I am not sure I see it that way.

Okay. Look back on the thread and see which one of us is saying stuff along the lines of "This is what I think a God would do" and which one of us is saying "What is the evidence we now have?"

and it's not what I said or what i think. I have said and I do think that there's truth and accuracy in the bible. Most historians even look at BIG claims, not supernatural, but even just grandiose natural claims and tend to be skeptical based on several factors, yes? So again, I see huge supernatural claims that cannot be confirmed. I dont believe supernatural claims from any other source, so why should I from the bible? But even if i did, I see that there are errors and problems with things that I can verify, so it already makes me doubly skeptical of the HUGE claims that are impossible to verify.

And once again, how do you know what is true or isn't true in the Bible in even just mundane history? You have said you don't believe supernatural claims from any source. Is it a shock then that you don't accept the claims of Scripture? If they wanted to attest to a miraculous event, how else could they do it but just state that it happened? What more could have been done? As for things that can be verified, start with the resurrection first and read the best arguments for it and against it.

I dont feel like this is hard. If anything about this is fundamentalist, it's just that it's fundamentally obvious.

No. It's not. It's a hang up on Biblical Inerrancy.

well now I am curious, what do you say about the sandals in the limited commission? Were they to be worn or not to be worn?

I gave you a link on this topic. Did you not see it?

and wants and desires? Not really an accurate way to describe this is it? I am not asking to be 6'-5" or have lots of money or to live till 100 or longer. The bible says that God wants us all to be saved, and then says one of the prerequisites for salvation if to believe. I dont believe it. I look. I read and I still look. I still dont believe. what i am asking for is that something believable to me be provided so that I may believe it.

And if sufficient evidence has been given, then you are not following through on your own responsibility. In fact, it's passing the blame elsewhere. Kind of like saying "If they do not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

it's like asking me to sit in chair in an empty room... How do I sit in a chair that's not there? "well, kinda araogant aint it that you refuse to sit in that chair?" I just dont see one.

And what are you doing to look for one? ARe you searching through the best resources on each side that you can find? I doubt it since you said the scholars don't know any better than we do.

which brings back to another point that should be obvious - I am not questioning God. I am questioning the men who claim to speak for him. I dont know these men. They wrote some books and letters. So are they telling the truth? Are they mistaken? Are they accurate?

All good questions and all best answered by visiting your local library and reading the best sources on the topic.

that's one approach.

Do you know of another one?

right about what?

I'm kind of wondering if you're reading the replies. If you had seen what I said here, you would see saying "I am right now" is not saying I am correct, but that that is what I am doing. I just did a check for a few seconds and found that out.

I know. Maybe it's because i grew up that way. but it also makes sense to me. I just cant seem to buy that a perfect God, who loves us all and wants us all to be saved, who can move the sun backward and create the universe, would commission a book of divine truths but ensure it was well edited. men write books all the time. some of them are error free.

Yeah. It is a lot about how one has been raised. You still have a fundamentalist mindset on these questions. For many of us, we have more than enough evidence for the resurrection. Many of us hold to Inerrancy. Some do not. For those of us who do, having an error would not cause us to abandon our faith. The resurrection is more than enough and we don't need the Bible to be the Word of God to attest to that.

this is conjecture. It may be true. some scholars may believe it's true, but some scholares also think that Matthew and Luke werent written by matthew or luke and both borrowed heavily from the Sayings Gospel of Q and from mark - do you believe that? So maybe Paul got it from someone else, maybe he made it up, and maybe he had a completely different view on it as the latter part of 1COR 15 suggests - that still doesnt make it true.

And so if you don't think it's true you have to ask, did the early church all make this up? Did the early church all experience delusions? Did multiple groups all at the same time experience delusions? What I am saying here is that this is material that will be granted by most every scholar save those on the fringe of the fringe.

“The only thing that we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus’s death. These appearances cannot be denied” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” p. 81

“We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg 230).

“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280)

“That the experiences did occur, even if they are explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever can agree.” (Reginald H. Fuller, Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142)

too expensive and time consuming? do you relieve believe that is what prevented it? God sacrificed his son/himself, but it was too much trouble to actually identify 500 witnesses that were brought up to serve as evidence, and in so doing left no good evidence that 500 men were even real?

For Paul, the mention of the 500 would have been sufficient. These people would have been known as touchstones of information in the community. Privacy was not really a big thing back then so you go to Jerusalem and ask "Who is the person who claims to have seen the risen Jesus?" "Oh right this way."

Also, yes, I am quite serious. The early church had to rely on financial resources like every other movement. They did not have money falling from the sky for them and they did not have time stand still while they wrote what they wrote.

really? you cant be serious.

Yes I can be. Most people today do not even bother learning anything. We live in a generation where articles from the Onion can be shared like they're serious and this by people who should know better, where wikipedia is taken as a serious authority, and where more people are spending time amusing themselves than educating themselves. 100 years ago we taught Latin and Greek in high schools. Today, we teach Remedial English in college.

Oh we have more knowledge than ever before and more access to knowledge, but that is only half the battle. Most people do not know what they need to know and most people do not know how to study these things.

In the ancient world, if you didn't know what you needed to know, you would die.

yeah. They believed all sorts of other wacky stuff too - or was all that stuff real as well? People believe weird crap today, even with more information, so it all must be real, since people wont just believe weird made up false things....

it looks like you make strawmen and then blame others for it.

No. I'm not saying it's all real. That's your straw man which is amusing since you accused me of it in the same post. What it boils down to is you say we can't trust the ancients because they were gullible supposedly. In reality, I'd say our modern times are just as gullible if not more gullible. Did people believe weird things? Sure. Did they believe true things also? Yes. However, it looks like you're defining weird as "outside of your worldview" which ultimately begs the questions.

The numbers are impressive, but they arent proof. People leave Christianity for islam and vise versa. People leave religion to become atheist and vise versa. Tom Barringer taught me that it's not about the numbers, but the bible also does, as in, "narrow is the way and few there be that find it." If lots of people are doing it, maybe youre not on the straight and narrow.

And now you're changing the goalposts. You're saying that God did not use an effective method. I pointed out the numbers and said "Yeah. I think the method has worked pretty well." Do people leave religion? Yep. That was also going on in the time of the apostles with people abandoning Christianity for various reasons. I have no idea who Tom Barringer is or why I should take the claim seriously. I don't see the narrow passage as one about the eternal ramifications of Jesus's message, but one applying to his current audience. Few in his time would accept the message.

but even then, all the Christians are made of of competing types, many times with one sect thinking the others are wrong. Those who believe in Jesus dont even agree on what to believe about him.

On the major issues, there is wide agreement. On secondary issues, there can be disagreement. Why is this a problem?

and anyone from any current religion can say, "Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively." cool. I dont see it that way.

No. There are several religions that died out. As for Islam, which would be one of the largest competitors, Islam has spread rapidly by the sword, especially in the Middle East. Even today apostasy can be punished by death and taxes can be enforced on non-Muslims. Muslim governments actively block Christian missionaries from coming into their country. If Islam had spread without the sword, it might be a different story.

[tabibito]

maybe. But Luke ends with "wait here," which tends to imply, "don't go anywhere."

No - the word translated as "wait" is "kathazo" - it doesn't imply "don't leave". As I stated in a prior post - When I go to Japan, I kathazo in Okazaki ... but weekends might find me even in Taiwan - with no effect whatever on my kathazo in Okazaki.

In acts, or In Luke, he could have just added, "and once in Galilee," or something similar. he would have to be very strapped for space for that to have made him leave it out.

He states that Jesus gave many convincing proofs over a period of 40 days. Maybe he considered detailing every step to be overkill.

[Gary]

I make no such claim. It takes no more than to realise that Luke's account does not continue beyond the day of resurrection (which you yourself have stated in your objection) and it all falls into place. For a DISPASSIONATE reader, that is.

The very last paragraph says that Jesus ascends to heaven!!! Are you saying Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of Resurrection in Luke and then returned from heaven in Matthew and John to appear to the disciples in Galilee???

That means that the second coming has already happened. And guess, what. You guys are still here. Jesus has come and gone and he left you guys behind!

[William]

Geez. Why would they do that in the Old Testament? Here's a clue. The cultures around them were polytheistic and were engaging in this kind of behavior. Israelites felt shamed by the other cultures and wanted the honor that went with those cultures. They exchanged their patron of YHWH for the patron of other deities. We even see this in their request to Samuel. "We want a king like all the other nations." Israel was tired of being shamed by those around her.

I am not sure what you mean. Whores in the OT or NT weren't only pagan worshipers. being a whore was shameful, yet it was done. Being with Whores was shameful, yet it happened, as did adultery, and many other things. But how, if they are only motivated by Honor/shame?


And it looks like you're saying also that sometimes honor people seek can be in conflict, like seeking honor among nearby nations or honor from within your own nation, stuff like that. that's what i am saying too. I think suggesting that They only had shame for Crucifixion, but not in injustice or being completely mistaken is a little more black and white that what people really are.

I just dont follow the shame/honor argument. They felt like being crucified was shameful, so since they believed their savior was crucified, his resurrection must be true if they were willing to admit a belief in a person who had shameful death? I see what appear to me as being several leaps here.

No. I'm not. I'm just saying that people in this culture thought primarily in terms of honor and shame. If you think they didn't, then please find some evidence of this position.

oh that's cool. Early It looked to me like you were implying that they solely thought in terms if honor and shame. I can agree with primarily, I just dont think solely is realistic.

If you will check the debate thread itself, I did not make assertions. I made arguments.




Yes. The debate itself.

That's what i thought. I read the entire debate. I just didn't find anything there convincing is all.

Okay. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these examples. However, your main problem is that this assumes that events of a miraculous nature never occur. Again, this is why you go through a work like Keener's. Are some of the miracles in there not really miracles? Probably. All of them? Well that's quite a pill to swallow. For your position to be true, every person who has claimed a miracle past or present must be lying or mistaken or delusional. Every single one of them. That's quite a claim. I happen to agree with Chesterton.

you want to see examples of natural events?

I don't assume that miracles can never occur. What i am saying that I have never seen any. I am saying that I have seen things people call miraculous or divine intervention that turn out to be purely natural and physical. So what i am saying is that i am skeptical of miraculous claims, especially when there's a natural possibility that explains it - in all my experiences, that's how it turns out. There could be miracles, you and I just have different levels of what it takes to be convinced of such claims.

[tabibito]

The very last paragraph says that Jesus ascends to heaven!!! Are you saying Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of Resurrection in Luke and then returned from heaven in Matthew and John to appear to the disciples in Galilee???

That means that the second coming has already happened. And guess, what. You guys are still here. Jesus has come and gone and he left you guys behind!

You really do like to draw the long bow. No - the "second coming" hasn't happened: "second coming" is not how Christ's return is termed in the Bible, the term is simply a verbal shorthand.

[Gary]

One need only glance at Acts 1:3 to see how "preposterous" this is.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Obviously, either "Luke" couldn't keep his story straight when he wrote the second book, or it was really written by someone else.

When people bring up such "contradictions" as this, I'm convinced that they're looking for excuses not to believe.

Acts 1

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

1 In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning 2 until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 4 While staying[a] with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

This is a very good point. In Acts the author of Luke/Acts says that Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days. That isn't what he said in Luke. But let's try to reconcile the two passages:

1. Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem, then leads them out to Bethany the same day to ascend into heaven.
2. Jesus returns from heaven and appears to the disciples in Galilee, after specifically telling them to remain in Jerusalem.
3. So when Jesus returns to earth in the last days, it will not be the SECOND coming, it will be the third, fourth, fifth or something like that...coming...

[William]

No - the word translated as "wait" is "kathazo" - it doesn't imply "don't leave". As I stated in a prior post - When I go to Japan, I kathazo in Okazaki ... but weekends might find me even in Taiwan - with no effect whatever on my kathazo in Okazaki.

hm. I often consult interlinear bibles and will have to here. I am not a greek scholar but i understand those who translated the texts were, so I usually feel safe in trusting their translations... usually. It looks like the word in Luke 24:49 is Kathisate or Kathizo (so i am kathazo is also precise) which I see is defined as "make to sit." So when you're sitting in Okazaki you can also be sitting in Taiwan?

can you point to better source than Strongs that can help understand why "wait" or "remain" in Jerusalem didnt mean that they had to stay in Jerusalem?

He states that Jesus gave many convincing proofs over a period of 40 days. Maybe he considered detailing every step to be overkill.

mentioning one out of the way city that would make it harmonize with the other competing texts is overkill?

[Gary]

And too many "apologists" (as opposed to - apologists) hand them even more excuses on a silver platter
by
seizing on the first half baked "explanation" that comes to mind instead of taking the allegation seriously and investigating the matter properly.

Case in point - the "resolution" offered by all too many "apologists", and referred to by Gary:



That kind of "resolution" is an outright embarrassment.

Your reinvention of the definition of the words "remain", "wait", and "then" are the real embarrassment. Are you sure you aren't Bill Clinton?

[Gary]

It is only a "contradiction" if it is ASSUMED that "then" means "immediately following." That meaning is not required in Greek OR in English. Further, a consultation with my NKJV shows the start of a new paragraph in Greek at "Then." This is only a contradiction because people want it to be one. Don't be taken in by Gary's hyperventilating. It is not "half-baked" to consider possible interpretations which are grammatically acceptable, in accord with further material by the same author, and resolve the apparent contradiction.

Imagine reading any other document, modern or ancient:

Paragraph one: That day....

Paragraph two: Later that day...

Paragraph three: Then that afternoon....

Paragraph four: Then that evening...

Paragraph five: Then he led them to such and such a place and levitated into the clouds.


Any person with a third grade education can see that the passage is talking about events that occurred in the span of one day. To infer that the last paragraph means forty days later is a joke!

[Gary]

The gospel of Luke finishes on the night following the day of the resurrection.

When Mary attempted to touch him, Jesus told her not to do so, as he had not yet ascended to the Father ... yet a week later, Thomas was permitted to touch him. So - what happened on the night following the resurrection that changed things? The answer to that question is made apparent by the fact that subsequent to the resurrection, and before Pentecost, Jesus appeared to the disciples, only for the third time: that third appearance being in Galilee.

ETA
That "then" is translated from the Koine Greek "de (δε)", which means "but" or "moreover" - so written in all major manuscript groups. This "then" is a dynamic translation, not a literal equivalent: dynamic translations of this kind always present the risk of leading people up the garden path.

"When Mary attempted to touch him, Jesus told her not to do so, as he had not yet ascended to the Father ... yet a week later, Thomas was permitted to touch him."

You bring up another discrepancy: If Mary was not allowed to touch Jesus prior to ascending to the Father, why were the Ten allowed to do it later that day in the upper room and Thomas a week later? And why does one Gospel say that the women touched Jesus feet, but another gospel has Jesus telling Mary not to touch him. Please unravel that one.

[Gary]

Nothing. The word translated "touch" has a range of meanings in English - which is why it is rendered differently in some translations as "do not cling to me." IMO the latter translation is both more in character with Jesus' personality and quite in character with the reaction of a woman happily reunited with someone she missed dearly.

Spin, spin, and more spin.